[sword-devel] John Gill

[Trevor Jenkins]

> This is a sad state of affairs, but not as bad as when publishers don't see
> the stupidity of translating the Bible, and claiming that it is the Word of
> God, and then copyright it, which implies a significant creative work...

I've seen this said before that copyrighting a translation negates the
content. Usually, but probably not so with Darwin, put forth as a KJV is the
pre-eminent version of the Bible---of course, those who hold a KJV-only
stance have never looked at the front of the book where it quite clearly has
the words "Crown Copyright" stamped on it, which is a copyright in
perpetuity. (Indeed there are still only 4 publishers with a licence to
print the Authorised Version.)

> My question is...  Is it the Word of God, or a creative work???

I'm involved in getting a translation project going. There is a lot of
"creativity" in translation. Read Beekman and Callow's "Translating the Word
of God" to see how much; talk with professional translators to inform you
how much.

> I think I am going to e-mail this question to some publishers...

Perhaps the translators should not be fed or feed their families? With a few
notable exceptions (J B Phillips, Eugene Petersen) translations are team
efforts. But then Phillips and Petersen's works are also copyright. Even the
paraphrase of Ken Taylor is copyright.

Perhaps they want to protect the translation from being corrupted by
unscrupulous people taking the results of prayerful work and bending it to
their own interpretation. Otherwise one descends into the "Cottonpatch"
mentality.

Regards, Trevor

British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living
language. So recognise it now.

--

<>< Re: deemed!